DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 17, 2026 with respect to the double patenting rejection are persuasive, and therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Most of Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are moot in view of the amendments to independent claims 1 and 15 adding the limitations of generating “an edge value … by performing convolution operations of the input image signal and a plurality of filters having different sizes from each other and performing intersection operations of results of the convolution operations.” Applicant argues that neither Su nor Kim teaches this combination of limitations. The examiner agrees that neither Su nor Kim explicitly teaches this combination of limitations, and therefore the rejection is withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection is set forth below.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments of alleged differences between the Kim reference and the inventions recited on claims 1 and 15, the rejection is moot because the Kim reference that was relied on in those rejections is no longer relied on in view of the amendments to claims 1 and 15.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The BRIs are used for purposes of searching for prior art, but cannot be incorporated into the claims. Claim limitations must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. MPEP 2111.01. BRIs for some of the claim limitations are provided below. Should Applicant believe that other interpretations are warranted, Applicant should point to the portions of the present disclosure that clearly show that a different interpretation is appropriate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2021/0118360 A1 to Su et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Su”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,647,027 A to Burges et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Burgess”).
Regarding claim 1, Su discloses an electronic device (system shown in Fig. 1) comprising a display device (Fig. 1, display system 100, 200, para. [0017]) comprising:
a display panel (Fig. 1, display panel 200) which displays an image based on an output image signal (Fig. 1, output display signal SD2, paras. [0017]-[0018]); and
a driving controller (Fig. 1, image processing device 100 comprises a driving controller) which generates the output image signal based on an input image signal (para. [0017] discusses the image processing device 100 driving the display panel 200 to display an image frame), the driving controller including:
an edge detector which generates an edge value for detecting an edge of the image (Fig. 5, edge case detect circuit 120) which generates an edge value for detecting an edge of the image (para. [0029]: “[t]he edge case detect circuit 120 is electrically coupled to the input data conversion circuit 110, and configured to determine a difference between the target luminance value and each of a part of adjacent luminance values and to identify the kind of a luminance edge characteristic the target subpixel has according to the differences”; the “luminance edge characteristic” constitutes the “edge value” of claim 1, the BRI for which is a value determined based on a difference between at least two adjacent pixels; the BRI is based on para. [0068] of the present disclosure; Su does not explicitly disclose using a plurality of filters of different sizes to generate the edge value);
a weight calculator (Fig. 5, weight matrix configuration circuit 130) which calculates a weight based on the edge value (para. [0030] discusses the weight matrix that is calculated by the weight matrix configuration circuit 130 based on the edge value, i.e., based in part on the “luminance edge characteristic”; Su compares the difference between adjacent pixels to thresholds to determine whether the luminance edge characteristic is a first edge case, a second edge case or a third edge case and then the weight matrix configuration circuit 130 sets the weights based on the first, second or third edge case designation; specifically, circuit 130 sets the weights of the weighting matrix according to different time-dependent functions based on the first, second or third edge case designations); and
a renderer which converts the input image signal to the output image signal
based on the weight (Fig. 5, subpixel rendering circuit 140 converts the input image signal to the output image signal based on the weight; para. [0022]: “[t]he subpixel rendering circuit 140 is configured to perform the subpixel rendering conversion on the target luminance value according to a weighting matrix and all of the first luminance values of the first subpixel group”).
Su does not explicitly disclose that the edge values are generated by performing convolution operations of the input image signal and a plurality of filters of different sizes from each other and performing intersection operations of the results of the convolution operations.
Burges, in the same field of endeavor, discloses performing edge detection by extracting the shapes of pixel clusters of an image signal to determine which shapes correspond to text and which shapes correspond to graphical elements and to perform optical character recognition on the text (Abstract, Col. 1, lines 34-39, Col. 3, lines 47-57). The process of Burgess involves convolving the input image signal with filter matrices of different sizes that are selected based on the expected sizes of the characters (The BRI for “filters having different sizes” is that it means matrices of different sizes, based on paras. [0010]-[0016] of the present specification. Burgess discloses, with reference to Fig. 2, steps 110 and 115, convolving at least two filter matrices, i.e., two convolution kernels, with the image signal: “providing a library of convolution kernels, and step 110 of selecting at least two kernels, each of which is convolved with the raw image, in step 115, to produce a respective feature map”. Col. 4, lines 45-65 of Burgess disclose bases for selecting optimum sizes of the convolution kernels. Col. 5, lines 8-20 discloses using four convolution kernels, “each of a different size”. The convolution operations are performed using a neural network architecture, Col. 6, lines 38-58).
Burgess further discloses that it is known to perform an intersection operation, i.e., a logical “AND” operation, on the convolution results when performing edge detection (Col. 2, lines 19-34, citing an IEEE article entitled “Rules and algorithms for the design of templates for template matching," by B.R. Meijer, published in 1992 in Proc. 11th IAPR Int. Conf. on Pattern Recognition, Vol. 1, Conf. A: Computer Vision and Applications, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, Calif. (1992) 760-763.). Burgess discloses performing intersection operations of the results of the convolution operations (Col. 5, lines 46-55, Col. 7, lines 45-54. Claims 7, 10, 15 and 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the edge case detect circuit 120 of Su to use the neural network architecture and intersection logic of Burgess to perform edge detection. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to take advantage of the accuracy with which neural networks can be configured to detect and classify image features in images, such as edges due to their well-known ability to learn complex image patterns and filter out noise under various lighting conditions. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (configuring the edge case detect circuit 120 to use a suitable neural network and intersection logic for performing edge detection).
Regarding claim 12, Su discloses that the display panel (Fig. 1, display panel 200) of the electronic device includes a first pixel, a second pixel, a third pixel which emit light of different colors from each other, wherein the second pixel is disposed in a first pixel row, and wherein the first pixel and the third pixel are disposed in a second pixel row adjacent to the first pixel row (Fig. 1 of Su is duplicated below and annotated to identify the first, second and third pixels that emit light of red, green and blue light, respectively, where the green pixel is disposed in a first pixel row and the red and blue pixels are disposed in a second pixel row).
Regarding claim 13, Su discloses that the input image signal Sd2 to the display panel 200 includes red, green and blue color signals corresponding to the red, green and blue pixels, respectively (Fig. 1, para. [0018]).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 15.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Burges as applied to claims 1, 12, 13 and 15 and further in view of U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2023/0186455 A1 to Kim et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Kim”).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings of Su and Burges do not explicitly disclose that the edge detector calculates the edge value based on a first edge value for detecting the edge of the image in a first direction and a second edge value for detecting the edge of the image in a second direction crossing the first direction. Kim, in the same field of endeavor, discloses this limitation (para. [0053]: “[t]he edge detector 60A may detect edge features in an x-axis direction and a y-axis direction by using the Sobel filter….”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the edge case detect circuit 120 of Su as modified based on the teachings of Burges further based on the teachings of Kim to calculate the first edge value by detecting the edge of the image in a first, x-axis direction and a second edge value in a second, y-axis direction crossing the first x-axis direction as taught by Kim. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification in order to detect edges in images in more than just one direction since images contain edges in multiple directions. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (configuring the edge case detect circuit 120 of Su as modified by Burges to perform edge detection in the x- and y-directions).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 2 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 16.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Burgess as applied to claims 1, 12, 13 and 15 and further in view of U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2021/0042886 A1 to Tokizaki et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Tokizaki”).
Regarding claim 11, circuit 130 of Su sets the weights of the weighting matrix according to different time-dependent functions based on whether the edge value is the first, second or third edge case. Therefore, the relationship between the edge value and the weight is nonlinear because it is based at least in part on the time-dependent functions, which are nonlinear. However, Su does not explicitly disclose that the weight increases as the edge value increases.
Tokizaki, in the same field of endeavor, discloses generating weight coefficients of a first filter that increase for pixels corresponding to an increased edge value of an object relative to the weight coefficients that are used for the background in the image. Fig. 1 of Tokizaki shows an edge detection section 103 that detects edges and a first filter coefficient computing unit 104 that generates the weighting coefficients based on the detected edge in the image. Fig. 3B shows a depth image, which shows a background image portion BB, an object image portion AA and an edge EG. Fig. 4A shows the weight coefficients for the first filter for the pixels of the depth image. It can be seen in Fig. 4A that the weight coefficients increase for the increases in the amount of the edge is contained in each pixel. For example, where the amount of edge in a pixel is small compared to the amount of background in the pixel, the weight coefficient may be 0.4 whereas where the amount of edge in a pixel is large compared to the amount of background in the pixel, the weight coefficient may be 0.8 (paras. [0052]-[0054]). Therefore, Tokizaki discloses that the weight increases as the edge value increases.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the weight matrix configuration circuit 130 of Su to calculate the weights to have values that increase with increases in the edge values as taught by Tokizaki. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification in order to ensure that the edges are weighted more heavily than background regions in the image. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods (weight matrix configuration circuit 130 of Su to calculate the weights to have values that increase with increases in the edge values) to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10, 14 and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the following limitations are not taught or suggested by the prior art:
calculating the first edge value by performing intersection operation of a first sub-edge value calculated based on a first filter having a first size among the plurality of filters, a second sub-edge value calculated based on a second filter having a second size greater than the first size among the plurality of filters, and a third sub-edge value calculated based on a third filter having a third size greater than the second size among the plurality of filters, and
calculating the second edge value by performing intersection operation of a fourth sub-edge value calculated based on a fourth filter having the first size among the plurality of filters, a fifth sub-edge value calculated based on a fifth filter having the second size among the plurality of filters, and a sixth sub-edge value calculated based on a sixth filter having the third size among the plurality of filters.
Regarding claim 7, the following limitations are not taught or suggested by the prior art:
the edge detector calculates the first edge value by performing intersection operation of a first sub-edge value calculated based on a first filter having a first size among the plurality of filters, a second sub-edge value calculated based on a second filter having a second size greater than the first size among the plurality of filters, a third sub-edge value calculated based on a third filter having a third size greater than the second size among the plurality of filters, and a fourth sub-edge value calculated based on a fourth filter having a fourth size greater than the third size among the plurality of filters, and
wherein the edge detector calculates the second edge value by performing intersection operation of a fifth sub-edge value calculated based on a fifth filter having the first size among the plurality of filters, a sixth sub-edge value calculated based on a sixth filter having the second size among the plurality of filters, a seventh sub-edge value calculated based on a seventh filter having the third size among the plurality of filters, and an eighth sub-edge value calculated based on an eighth filter having the fourth size among the plurality of filters.
Claims 4-6, 8-10 and 18-20 recite allowable subject matter due to their direct or indirect dependence from claims 3, 7 or 17.
Regarding claim 14, none of the prior art teaches or suggests the following limitations in combination with the limitations of the claims from which claim 14 depends:
wherein the renderer renders the first color signal using a first rendering filter in which the weight is disposed in a first direction, wherein the renderer renders the second color signal using a second rendering filter in which the weight is disposed in a second direction opposite to the first direction, wherein the renderer renders the third color signal using a third rendering filter in which the weight is disposed in the first direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
An article entitled “Rules and algorithms for the design of templates for template matching," by B.R. Meijer, published in 1992 in Proc. 11th IAPR Int. Conf. on Pattern Recognition, Vol. 1, Conf. A: Computer Vision and Applications, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, Calif. (1992) 760-763, discloses a method for edge detection that uses a pair of complementary convolution kernels to detect image contours by using binary multiplication (the AND operation) to combine the output of a kernel that, e.g., detects a given pixel only when it is black, with the output of a kernel that detects neighbors of a given pixel only when they are white.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-2867. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matt Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL J. SANTOS/Examiner, Art Unit 2667 /MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights